/lit/ - Literature

>>16809670
Show the meme one

Theory isn't real, read math.

>>16809670
I've been looking for a rightoid chart that isn't based in some way in perennialism for a while. I was personally looking at Burke, Hobbes, and that one french guy who defended the monarchy as protoconservative thinkers, but I haven't really gone any further with it. Bumping for interest.

Right wing ideas are intuitive. Leftist need tomes of gobbledygook to justify their retarded ideas

>>16810149
this

"right wing" is an extremely broad term, so wrapping works in it makes no sense since a lot of them would fundamentally contradict each other

>>16810149
>Right wing ideas are intuitive
>Leftist need tomes of gobbledygook
Is this the reason for pic related?

>>16810149
>Right wing ideas are intuitive
So right wing ideas are 'logic' and 'common sense' formed by exposure to the system. Yes that makes perfect sense.
A North Korean intuitively knows that their great leader is the reason the sun rose this morning. Stupid South Koreans need tomes of scientific gobbledygook to justify their retarded sun rising theories.

>>16810196
No. That's just because a lot of leftists are women

>>16810250
Is it that strange, when most women enjoy freedom?

>>16810250
>Women cannot into humor
I don't know about that, I find your mom pretty funny. On a more serious note, that seems like a chicken and the egg-scenario though? Are women leftists or are leftists women? Insofar as it's talk of the atrocity of online identitarian leftism I don't see more women than I do men and in-betweeners (nonbinary etc.)

>>16810241
>A North Korean intuitively knows that their great leader is the reason the sun rose this morning.
No, that's not intuitive, that's learned. They all must intuitively feel it's wrong what they're doing, but if they don't they get shot so they do it anyway.

I found this list in the archives. Some of these are well known, the others seem to be not studied as much as they should be due to the dominion of the New Left over academia.

Oswald Spengler
Edgar Julius Jung
Carl Schmitt
Thomas Mann (until 1922)
Ernst Jünger, and his brother Friedrich Georg Jünger
Arthur Moeller van den Bruck
Stefan George
Ernst Niekisch
Martin Niemöller
Wilhelm Stapel
Hans Freyer
Othmar Spann
Hugo von Hofmannsthal and the Lensch-Cunow-Haenisch group
Ernst von Salomon
Ludwig Klages
August Winnig
Georg Quabbe
Hans Zehrer
Werner Sombart
Hermann Rauschning
Julius Evola
Martin Heidegger
Gottfried Benn
Fiedrich Hielscher
Karl Haushofer
Alfred Bäumler
Paul Ernst
Paul Lensch
Mathilde Ludendorff
Sigrid Hunke
Jakob Wilhelm Hauer
Hans Grimm
Ernst Forsthoff
Werner Best

>>16810341
None of those authors are right wing in the sense that polincels are right wing.

>>16810468
Weininger is, though. He reflects just about any sentiment you'd find in the /pol/ mainstream nowadays.

>>16810468
>Thread about RW thinkers/intelectualls/theory writers
>list given
>uh actually those people aren't like the RW people that make fun of me on the internet so...?

Start here.

>>16810241
Intuition and "if i don't smile when glorious leader gives a speech my entire family will disappear" aren't really the same

>>16809705
>that one french guy who defended the monarchy
whom?

>>16809670
Right wing theory is just being well read

>>16810534
Says man on /lit/ who has likely only read three books

>>16810519
Looked it up. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

>>16810519
De Maistre, probably

>>16810545
>>16810548
i'll check these out
thanks

>>16810309

how would you know what people know or feel without talking to them

>>16810534
right wingers are anti-education

>>16810149
>>16810309
>feels>reals

There are many paths RW people can go down, some new ones are cropping up now that have no charts made yet. Moldbug's, WN twitter, RW bodybuilders/BAPISTS, etc.
That being said, there's a bunch on the lit charts wiki, reactionary, polack and more. Go nuts

>>16809670

most thoughtful political philosophy is inherently leftist because rightoids don't value knowledge, only power. so they are more interested in people like machiavelli because they only care about imposing their will and being devious and oppressive

>>16810597
Poor bait

>>16810543
It's obvious that there isn't a "right wing canon" in the same way that there's a Marxist canon which is why I say "the theory" is just reading broadly. I would tell an aspiring rightoid to consider both Nietzsche's Anti-Christ AND the Bible for example, and that's a perfectly valid recommendation.

>>16810602
go ahead tell me I'm wrong lol. oh so sorry you have ayn rand how could I forget

>>16810567
Irrational reactions can be correct reactions

>>16810626
>Nietzsche and the Bible
the absolute state of /pol/

>>16810597
>rightoids don't value knowledge, only power
false
politics is about power, political knowledge is generated to the end of acquiring power. right-wingers don't generate philosophy because they all have overt superiority complexes and respond do any loss of power by doubling down on their delusions, thinking themselves as still having it, whereas the socialite left-wing practically has philosophical jargon frothing out of their mouth to cope with their inferiority complex and what they think of as an always-unequal situation generated by the right's presence

>>16810636
reactionary politics is never going to be the solution to any problem because it never addresses the root of the problem

>>16810468
Thankfully we are not on /pol/ so we don't need to worry about polincels. The authors are worth discussing though.

>>16810477
Weininger isn't even on the list, is he?

>>16810637
Take any example you like

>>16810678
No, is not. I was gonna suggest to add him to the list, though. Any case if you're interested in "proto-incel" literature he should be your go-to.

>>16810690
Was your suggestion meant to discredit everyone on the list by calling them "proto-incel"?

>>16810648
I get what you're saying but I don't think that's entirely true. It's just the leftist philosophy comes from a want for the betterment of the common people. Yes I agree philosophy (but especially political philosophy) can be very masturbatory, but I don't think leftists are incorrect in saying that it is an always-unequal situation because fascism was explicitly created to oppose leftists, and has created a large web of conspirators that actively work to squash leftist governments. The right, and particularly fascism is inherently violent, whereas only less popular forms of leftist philosophy advocate violence.

>>16810710
No, that's not the claim I'm making, but I don't blame you for thinking that. People generally branded 'incels' will probably find Weininger to be insightful or interesting, hence "proto-incel", seeing as he wrote his books 200 years back. The opinion isn't one I personally hold but is one I can reflect on and use to the end of communicating nuance. If you take issue with what other people might think of the guy that's not on me, that's on them.

>>16810658
??? What are reactionary politics to you? Why does its proposed solution fall short? What is the problem? What is the root of the problem?

>>16809691
based

>>16810468
So?

>>16810714
>has created a large web of conspirators that actively work to squash leftist governments
given that many leftists since Marx and pals have been rallying and masturbating to the coming R E V O L U T I O N and the slaughter and overthrow of the current order and its people, what do you expect? siegefags, propertarians and boogboys
jack off to civil war and strife too and they're still fuckin fags, what more you lot
and idk about you but it's not like there isn't a mutual attempt to fuck with non-leftist governments by the leftists

>>16810714
>fascism was explicitly created to oppose leftists
That's an overstatement, in my estimation. Fascism's expressed concern lies with that of the integrity and the unity of the nation-state. Their opposition to minorities and egalitarian movements occur as a consequence of that. That sounds fairly reflective of what I mean when I say 'overt superiority complex'. If you listen honestly to /pol/ack rhetoric today you'll also find they hold that so-and-so fascist dictator was "right" - they never lost, or in the case they did, well, no they didn't, or it was a subversive plot that only temporarily sets them back. Fascist conspiracies are knee-jerk, or as you might call it, "reactionary". Whether the cause of the reaction is real I don't care to assess, fact of the matter is that the fash themselves see it as being there, which I think you would agree with.

As for your point about leftists, you're just restating what I already said. They see the presence of fascism or more generally the authoritarian right as being the cause of an unequal situation. They see themselves as without any real power, and so take to writing, conjecturing, and philosophizing in order to expose what they see as unfair power structures. I'm not making any claim of the truth about either belief system here (insofar as you can talk about a unified one), I'm armchair psychologizing them both to try give a metaperspective. I doubt you'll get it, and what you'll see in me is gonna end up being reflective of your own position, but nevertheless not trying doesn't get anyone anywhere.

>>16809670
There's real right-wing philosophy, yeah:
Michael Oakeshott: Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays
Roger Scruton: How to Be a Conservative
Russel Kirk: The Conservative Mind
Frank S Meyer: In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays
Spengler: Decline of the West
Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
Hobbes: Leviathan
Strauss: Natural Right and History
Reid: An Inquiry into the Human Mind
That's conservative stuff. Conservatism has a long ideological history with serious philosophy, probably more than any other ideological tree.
But you said, "Right-wing," which also includes liberalism (in its pre-Rawlsian sense). Liberalism has a lot of theory. I presume you don't mean liberalism, of course, because everyone knows there's a lot of liberal theory.

>>16809670
Ok so for non-perrenialist grounded right wing theory;
The following guys all presuppose you have read the Greeks and Medievals to some degree or another >>16720263
Richard Weaver - Ideas Have Consequences
Anything Alasdair MacIntyre has ever written even though he, correctly, rejects the label "conservative"
After Virtue is a good place to start with him
Edward Feser is great too - read his Scholastic Metaphysics or The Last Supersititon
Roger Scruton is great - read his Soul of the World
Other recs;
>Rene Girard - Violence and the Sacred
>Patrick Buchanan - Death of the West
>Oswald Spengler - Prussianism and Socialism // Decline of the West
>Charles Taylor - A Secular Age
>Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev - Reflections of a Russian Statesman
>Ernst Junger - Storm of Steel
>Carl Schmitt - Political Theology
>Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
>Niztan & Bichler - Capital as Power (useful BTFO of Marxism and Neoclassical econ but its written by cosmopolitan academics so you can safely ignore their view of theological history)
>Phillip Blond - Red Tory
>Cardinal Sarah - The Day is Now Far Spent
>Jean Bodin - The Six Books of the Republic
>Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet - Discourse on Universal History // Politics Drawn from the very Words of Holy Scripture
>Donoso Cortes - Catholicism, Liberalism, arid Socialism
>Joseph De Maistre - Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions // St. Petersburg Dialogues
>>16809705
oh hey its doubtposter
congrats on murdering the butterfly

>>16810468
>/pol/
why would you bother with that shit tho
>>16811008
Liberalism is the antithesis of "right-wing"
the enlightenment project grounds everything that is opposed to the right
the reality is that the modern right is just an older version of the left which is why one might identify older liberals as "right-wing"

>>16810250
In spirit, yes correct.

>>16811081
>liberalism is the antithesis of the right
That all depends on your definition of "right-wing." Certainly nobody today desires the creation of a system similar to that of the 17th century. Then is nobody right-wing? The question "am I on the right" means (in my opinion) "are my opinions to the left or to the right of the centre in my given time period and nation." Liberals would be considered "right-wing" by that definition.
>>16811065
This is a pretty good list. Weaver slipped my mind. In that same vein, I'd recommend James Burnham's Suicide of the West.

>>16811065
Sup bro. Thanks for the list. Where should a brainlet start with the conservatives?

Take your fucking pick.
>Monarchism
>Fascism
>National-Socialist
>Niche Fascism
>Niche National-Socialism
>Catholic Integralism
>Syndicalism
>Paleo-Consevativism
This is all solely post-1899, and only in the West. If you stretch this further to "Anti-Enlightenment in general", then the entire Chinese, Indian, and Islamic intellectual traditions, and the entirety of Western philosophy pre-French Revolution also fit this bill.

>>16811109
I don't think using Left and Right as "relative terms" is at all useful. The Left is the Enlightenment, the Right is Anti-Enlightenment. Yes, that means 99% of human thought is "Right Wing", Left vs Right is a garbage paradigm so you shouldn't be using it, the fact that engaging with reality demonstrates that it is garbage is a demonstration of the fact that you shouldn't be using it.

>>16811138
I'm not sure your definition of "right/left-wing" is accurate to how it is in fact used. If I asked the average person what separates the right or left-wing, they would likely think about their position on economics or abortion, not on the enlightenment. If the term is used by 90% of people in one way and by a very small minority of people in another, that is certainly an argument against the usage of the term (vagueness in meaning), but I still think we should assume the definition which is most common unless otherwise specified. The most common usage of the term "right" and "left" are as relative political terms, not positions on the enlightenment.

>>16811179
If we're talking about positions within a specific society, sure, I wouldn't disagree at all. But OP isn't asking for books within the American political dialect (which is, of course, entirely Liberal and as such Pro-Enlightenment). By that fact alone, that dialectic (which only really works out within a Liberal framework anyways) falls apart, and we need to start conceptualizing politics differently. Would Hitler vote Republican, or Democrat? It's a meaningless question.

Perhaps I'm wrong, however, and OP wants books by Glenn Beck, stuff about how abortion is bad because the child didn't consent, maybe some Thomas Sowell, some Ron Paul or Bill Crystol, whatever, it's stuff entirely within the American Left-Right Paradigm. But then, I doubt someone who has that pic saved on his computer would want that kind of stuff.

>>16810241
>A North Korean intuitively knows that their great leader is the reason the sun rose this morning
No, many of them know how fucked their situation is, which is why they try to flee often. Same with Cuba

>>16810468
/pol/ is always right and it’s the most intelligent board on this website

>>16810561
Very funny considering it’s the left wing who has repressed research into several fields of biology due to slippery slope bullshit

What do you think about "the Clash of civilization" by hungtinton ? It's trendy in Europe nowadays.. Who knows why....

>>16811115
its really hard to say but arguably starting with Weaver's book Ideas Have Consequences is your best bet - he's really nice to read.
He's gonna presuppose that you're familiar with Plato and to a lesser extent Nietzsche in which case do the Republic and Beyond Good and Evil first.

I personally always recommend that everyone suffers through Proclus's Elements of Theology at some point - because it is probably the most valuable and dense 67 pages of English you might ever read because it systematically outlines Platonism better than anyone has ever done.

After that, head on over to MacIntyre and Feser - Feser is a lot closer to modern conservatism, which is actually why i don't like his politics lmao (except until recently because he decided to read Aquina's De Regno) but everything else of his is really good.

The best right wing political theory I've ever read is C.A. Bond's Nemesis but he does reject the left vs. right distinction - he has a whole chapter on it

But its obvious where political his preferences lie.

>>16811680
but if you want to read the fun stuff, read
>Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev - Reflections of a Russian Statesman
>Ernst Junger - Storm of Steel
>Joseph De Maistre - Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions // St. Petersburg Dialogues

>>16811229
>>16811179
Both of you make good points. There needs to be a better distinction between right/left wing and Right/Left wing.

>>16810714
>fascism was explicitly created to oppose leftists
Fascism was explicitly created because of syndicalist split from the socialist party
>>16810981
>Their opposition to minorities
Fascist italy was never "opposed" to minorities. The only real minority population in italy were the jews, 1/3 of which were members of the fascist party, mussolini considered them to be Italians and his own mistress was jewish.
>and egalitarian movements
there were no egalitarian movements to be opposed to. marxism is not egalitarian and fascism itself supports a merit based system where the citizen is able to achieve self actualization within the state
>If you listen honestly to /pol/ack rhetoric
About as useful to listening to any average person who has no knowledge of what they are talking about
>Fascist conspiracies
Are not fascist
>or as you might call it, "reactionary"
Fascism is only reactionary in the context of historical materialism and making it a barrier in the march of progress thus inherently reactionary/irrational in the marxist method.
Viewed from less dogmatic lenses and in its historical context fascism was quite progressive in many aspects

>>16809670
can someone recommend some books on right wing/traditional Buddhism? I like Buddhism but I can't stand the hippy shit that gets injected into it by moderns.

>>16812115

>>16809670
The Bell Curve is the only theory I need to hate niggers.

>>16810492
Read Plato, Shakespeare, and Schopenhauer for a better right wing introduction.

>>16810341
Very good list. Some more important than others. Moeller van den Bruck's Third Reich recently came out in English translation. Good starting place.

>>16812327
Imagine needing science to hate niggers. Pathetic!

>>16811138
Left and right break down for me for two reasons:
1. left is commonly taken to mean both enlightenment liberalism AND marxism AND anarchism, even though marxists and anarchists hate eachother and both of them hate most enlightened liberals
2. both left and right have critiques of capitalism that often coincide; where they don't coincide, for example whether the ultimate reality is an international workers' movement or nations freed from usury, is more a matter of theology than economic doctrine

Considering most people identifying as commies and anarchists at present are useful idiots for globalist capitalists, it's often convenient to say "the left." Everyone knows what you mean when you describe the greaseball drug addict polyamorous genderqueer cuckold hitting an old man with a baseball bat a leftist. But technically speaking, it is more accurate to just call him a mentally unwell idiot radicalized by chatrooms, and point out that his entire cause is astroturfed by corporations.

>>16812104
>historical context fascism was quite progressive in many aspects
how

>>16812433
Read "How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich," and "Hitler's Green Party"

Basically founded green politics and true welfare states.

>>16812433
Fascists also have a history of developing industries as opposed to seizing/having the backing of the lords of industry.

>>16810492
kek'd

>>16812433
>universal suffrage including women
>minimum wage
>8 hour work day
>progressive tax
>seizure of war profits
Read Sorel, Gentile, Panunzino, Spirito and Bombacci among others.
If you can't read italian or french you're gonna have a tough time and will have to rely on secondary sources
>>16812445
NSDAP weren't fascists, they never referred to themselves as fascists, and they were highly critical of Musso as well as fascist italy.
National Socialism is its own thing entirely

>>16812478
The National Socialists are still part of the greater Fascist family even if they aren't Italian Fascists.

>>16812506
>National Socialists are still part of the greater Fascist family
How, their influences are completely different
They have an entirely different conception of the state in it's. For national socialism he state is a means to an end while for fascism the state is an end in itself
Fascists wanted total corporatism for the economy while the nsdap only wanted it for some sectors

Their alliance was a tactical one because of common enemies, capitalism and marxism.

>>16812537
Parallel developments in different movements is still a justifiable means to classify them as kindred, Anon. Even if the two accounts are very visibly particular, they have greater similarities between each other than with most.

Class cooperation, heavy state-control and intervention in aspects of the economy, hierarchy, nation, and government being of maximal importance, the importance of military. There are many things in which Italian Fascists and National Socialists can see eye to eye on.

>>16810566
>ISAIF
>batshit crazy

Don't fall for dichotomyfagging. If it's left or right wing it's probably shit.
Same with the center.

>>16810566
I remember when this was made, I was in that thread

I still laugh every time some poseur asshole tries to poke holes in it, they usually say ">mann >right wing" and prove they don't know shit

>>16811081
>Liberalism is the antithesis of "right-wing"
>modern right is just an older version of the left
How did you get to this conclusion? The left and right work in tandem, and it may seem counterintuitive but the right essentially lays the ground for the left. In that sense they are more progressive, or at least ahead of the left in time.

>>16812603
>Parallel developments in different movements is still a justifiable means to classify them as kindred
Their movements are not parallel. Again their origin is completely different, their ideals were different, and their end goals were different.
The fact that they have some material commonalities is a very superfical way of looking at things. The fact of the matter is that the fascists and national socialists were reluctant allies. That is all.

Here is a passage state from Goebbels Diaries. Start from the third paragraph.

I hate niggers who use "right-wing" and "left-wing".
A literal admission that you are incapable of holding a nuanced opinion.

>>16810710
>He reflects just about any sentiment you'd find in the /pol/ mainstream nowadays.
Such as?

>>16810758
>If you take issue with what other people might think of the guy that's not on me, that's on them.
Yet you were the one who first brought up Weininger in this context. For what reason would you persist in associating two things that you claim not to think belong together, unless you really are part of the mob who "might" think they do, despite your claims to the contrary?

>>16809670
The right-left dichotomy is a synthetic one forged in modernity by the revolutionaries. With the French Revolution you had reactionaries versus the revolutionaries, and this posed a major ideological split. One of traditional order, of righteousness, and one of the Nation-state, one of human supremacy and science. This is the first instance of "right versus left." However, it was Marxism that properly solidified the proletariat versus bourgeois dichotomy which grew into right versus left. The only true definition of "right" was someone who didn't support the proletarian struggle, just as the reactionaries were those who didn't want to behead the king. This is important to talk about because it displays the underlying nature of the left and right. The left is able to be thought of as a consistent whole which has varying levels of extremeness; the right, however, is only unified in not being left. This means that you can have vast ideological gaps between rightists. Confucian China, Monarchial Austria, and Liberal America are all allegedly right-wing, despite them having very few areas of agreement other than being enemies of the leftists in their own countries. Conservatism is a pluralistic field which encompasses countless strands of thought and argues for their preservation in the face of leftist, globalist, or other "modern" forces that pose a threat to them.

You fools, you already fell to our trap!

>>16813493
This but unironcially

>>16813493
>>16813511
This

The actual return to primitive communism was the return to an ascetic way of life, without education and having understood itself as creatures plagued by mystery and Submission to God.

I skimmed this thread and didn't see the Bible get mentioned at all. Although it doesn't neatly fit into the category of "rw theory" it is definitely foundational.

On that note, something that I think often gets overlooked are papal encyclicals.

Also, is "rightwing" just anything that rejects freemasonry? Where does freemasonry fit into the spectrum?

>>16810250
>>16811100
Men talk more than women though. This has been proven.

>>16809670
Right wing isn't real, read theory.

>>16813579
Bible is leftwing

>>16810561
No they're anti-intellectualism which isn't the same thing

>>16814171
That's not right wing though.
Why would that be right wing, to question institutions?

>>16813493
I lost

Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug
all you need.

>>16814171
sure ok

>>16814708
Let them kill it. Department of education is already corrupt to the core. I've learned more in one year as a neet reading books by myself than the department of ed could hope to teach me in a lifetime.

>>16813618
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

>>16814708
Public education is garbage, you're arguing against your own point.

>>16810149
Yes, one is based on instinct which were evolved to deal with small hunter gathere groups, the other is made to fit post industrialized society with millions of member

>>16810710
>>16813447
t. butthurt incel

>>16813579
the bible isn't a political manifesto

How do I write a political manifesto?
My ideology is about creating heaven on earth

>>16815428
with or without god?

>>16815434
god is in all of us, i think. may be the absolute, the consciousness before all other consciousness
I'm trying

>>16815456
that's nowhere near concrete enough to serve as a basis for meaningful transformation - for good or for ill.
try writing some shortstories instead, maybe it will make things clearer for you.

>>16810658
>he fell for the linear progress of history meme
oh no no no sweetie... archetypes are eternal

>>16815466
i will talk to you again next year

>>16812629
in a thread of retards here is king retard

>>16815469
are they though? Jung seemed to think that higher forms of consciousness transform the way lower order archetypes manifest.

>>16814759
this desu

>>16811065
what about some basic texts for understanding say liberalism or post enlightenment theory? we don't want a distributist moment where "analytical philosophy just math bro" or "foucault talk about power bad"

>>16810492
this is the actual situation of right-wing literature.

You should probably start with the classics.

Why murder is wrong -- Ludwig Bonhem
Theft and Property: A Theory of Society -- John Smenson
The unforeseen repercussions of overthrowing the state -- JL Barone
People in the past knew things too -- Ersa Algada
Civilization is a good thing -- H Blotokin
DIY: how to repair damaged goods and save money -- Fra F.
Does the world exist after I die? -- Anton Grabelli

>>16815617
What

>>16815617
I'm getting a call from the Cringe Department, I think it's for you.

>>16815670
dead meme

>>16815670
I'm getting a call from the Cringe Department, I think it's for you.

>>16815677
>>16815688
samefag

>>16815690
>everyone I don't like is samefag
go back

>>16815690
I'm getting a call from the Cringe Department, I think it's for you.

>>16815670
cringe is a verb

>>16815752

>>16815752
>>16815758
there is so much wrong with this

i also like how the chart patronizes you while also being retarded in itself
Was probably made by a highschooler

>>16815783
>the chart patronizes you
It's obviously tongue in cheek.
>being retarded in itself
How? Sounds like you're just coping lol.

>>16815752
good attempt at subverting the high-IQ elements of /pol/, not sure what your intended endgame is though. are you trying to turn more people into lolberts?

>>16815816
>How? Sounds like you're just coping lol.
They're meme books under meme ideologies that are not ordered in a way that would make any reasonable sense.
Following this chart in any way would not help anyone, especially not a /pol/ak. It would leave them more confused.

>>16815964
>It would leave them more confused.
that seems like the intention, though it's more like it will make them realize they were just larping as something they never had any understanding of to begin with.

>>16809670
>>16810341
>>16810492
>>16810566
>>16811065
>>16815617
>>16815752
>>16815758
Real right wing theory coming through

>>16815816
It's definitely retarded. Dugin is an anti-fascist and an anti-racist. Hoppe defends absolute monarchy. And why would Uncle Ted be grouped with throne sniffers? This is just someone who hasn't read the books trying to look like he has, maybe even as a joke.

>>16815989
yeah you're right
someone made this for a meme
and people keep posting it, and they don't know it's a meme

>>16809670
>>16810341
>>16810492
>>16810566
>>16811065
>>16815617
>>16815752
>>16815758

>>16816018
good meme. also, is that "debate leftists and destroy them" book real?

>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
Fuck off to pol il/lit/erates

>>16816031
https://www.amazon.ca/How-Debate-Leftists-Destroy-Them-ebook/dp/B00JRJQ7Z2

>>16816048
>#1 bestseller
my poor sides

>>16816018
Most of the stuff on the right is rightwing, even Marx.....

>>16816018
>>16816003
POINT AT HIM!
POINT AT HIM AND LAUGH!

>>16816018
>>16816063
Excuse me, most stuff on the left is rightwing, even Marx....

the joke


>>16816067

I am a fascist and i think /pol/ is hopelessly retarded.
I went on /leftypol/ to see what it's like,
same shit! maybe even worse so because of the added pompous arrogance "heh i read theory" (they haven't)
The only thing that is worth any value is discussing written works and the historical context in which they were written in.

And to any people who seriously subscribe to any "isms" know this: your enemy has and always will be high finance. If you want to fight it, organize your communities.

>>16815474
How is it wrong dichhotomyfag?

>>16816018
>Nietzsche
>Charles Darwin
>Tolstoy
>Camus
>Goethe
>ADAM FUCKING SMITH
>Leftwing
Hope this is a meme

>>16816076
>I read a book so now I am absorbed in dislike for unimportant people I've never met
The literacy-industrial complex's greatest trick.

>>16809670
Any philosophy before the enlightenment can be considered "right wing".

>>16816113
It's their psychology, they're exactly what they claim to despise.

>>16810956
What's the Left-wing Gladio?

>>16813579
Freemasons are classical liberals. The anti-masonic party was a predecessor of the labor movement.

>>16812629
This shouldn't be ignored op. The more someone falls for the dichotomy the more likely they're retarded.
The best authors mentioned here didn't fall for the trick.

>>16810241
You must be a real baizuo to believe this NO ONE THINKS KIM IS A GOD stop being a schizo you fucktard

>>16810492
>ayn rand
Oh nononon oh nonono
>literal greek fag
AHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAHAH

>>16810597
this is genuinely what the average reddit tier liberal believes hahahaha. you people literally live in a different timeline or live in ur own fanfictions. so mother fucking bizarre.

>>16813493
yeah when the average person reads they become communist, because they're midwit psueds who misinterpret and misunderstand literally every single thing they read. mass literacy was a mistake.

>>16810658
>muh linear history
>muh progress
It is ironic how lefties sound like industrialist of 1800's when taking about progress.
>More factories! More rails!
Just replace rails and favorites with more unskilled foreign labor and more welfare.

>>16814708
yeah because the funding isn't used
properly and doesn't improve grades or anything. you're such a fucking midwit holy shit. real marxists are a joy to talk to because they're not this fucking retarded.

>>16815024
best argument for this i've ever read lol

>>16814708
>education is failing?
>give it more money
>it's still failing?
>more money -- didn't work last time
>still?
>not enough money, I guess

Also
>equating education funding with intellectualism

Yikers.

>>16810628
You didn't exist 5 years ago and you'll be gone in another 5 years from now. You'll look back on your time spent on the internet and cringe to yourself about what a massive faggot you were

Why do people shit on Ayn Rand? The working man is a hero in her books.

>>16816906
good observation, lefties are obsessed with money as a be-all-end-all to structural problems in a way noone else is. it has something to do with Marx' materialist reductionism. "everything is material conditions, so if we just throw material at education it will get better", "just distribute money evenly and life will be fair". completely decoupled from reality.

>>16810149
>books are for morons

>>16812104
>>16813452

Actually good posts for once. Thx, boys.

>>16810566
Blake would slap you for putting his poems on this godforsaken chart faggot

>>16816018
How is the Picture of Dorian Grey left-wing or even political?

>>16817129
They're obsessed with power and the centralization of it especially in the US. The more power they have the more they can socially engineer people into a heaven on earth.
It's going to fail miserably, of course, given, as you said, the fact they are very materialistic people and quite literally cannot comprehend spiritualism or any form of abstract thinking. These people could be provided everything and deep down they'd still want to die because they don't have a reason to live. I could give them all the money in the world and it wouldn't change a thing.
They don't understand there's more to life than power for power's sake. It's like explaining art to a dog, frankly.

>>16817943
ty

>>16812432
Just call them progressives. None of them object to that because that is what they are and it may eventually become a slur again

>>16813452
In other words it's all a conflict between "We should make this better" and "If it ain't broke don't fix it"

>>16820503
I love the word progressive because it so clearly applies to both commies and liberals, apart from the handful of orthodox Marxist commies who are tarred as 'class reductionists' if not outright crypto-fash

>>16820527
What's so special about class reductionists?

>>16810492
milo is a jew puppet

>>16814708
>being against a bloated and failing government department is the same as being against education
>t-the ministry of peace has peace in its name so if you are against them you must hate peace!

>>16815526
>a distributist moment
kek
ok if you want to understand the enlightenment from a philosophical perspective, properly doing Kant would be key.
MacIntyre does a pretty good appraisal of the enlightenment project from a from the moral philosophy point of view, and quite thoroughly from A Short History of Ethics and the AF // WJ?WR? // 3RV trilogy.
But when it comes to actually reading and understanding the enlightenment at least as it concerns politics at a basic level;
>Rousseau - The Social Contract
>Hobbes - Leviathan
>John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
>John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
>Immanuel Kant - Prolegomena // What is Enlightenment? (essay)
>Spinoza - Ethics
>John Rawls - Theory of Justice
>Karl Popper - The Open Society and its Enemies
>F.A. Hayek - Road to Serfdom
>Larry Sidentop - Inventing the Individual
I would also recommend Hegel's Philosophy of Right but that actually seems far more reactionary any anything on this list so far.
I guess Sidentop can also be read in a reactionary manner too if you want.
I've also purposely left out Marxism because that's its own bag of worms.
For post-enlightenment theory that isn't right-wing I'd read Nietzsche and then go for;
>Deleuze - Post Script to Societies of Control (essay)
>Foucualt - Discipline and Punish
>Adorno - Culture Industry
>Baudrillard - Simulation and Simulacra // Symbolic Exchange and Death
>Jameson - The Political Unconcious
>Bataille - Visions of Excess
>Lyotard - The Postmodern Condition // Libidinal Economy
>Lacan - Ecrits
>Zizek - Sublime Object of Ideology

If you want to do the more interesting elements of post-enlightenment theory, the accelerationism chart I'm going to attach is a good one to explore even if Land himself is a lolcow

>>16820797

>>16810290
I mean the terms left and right are exceedingly ill-defined and reductionsistic especially in today's societies but in general left-wing individuals tend to be more emotional and right-wing individuals more calculating (not to say that left-wing individuals are incapable of rational thought or that right-wing individuals are incapable of compassion, simply that the perspectives and motives may be different).

>>16812537
Then what does it say that the national socialists had a greater economy than the other fascist states.

>>16816048
>21 pages

>>16820824
Shut up retard

>>16810468
>muh /pol/ bogey man

>>16810492
I always thought Atlas Shrugged would be like 200 pages long what the fuck? My copy of "The Prince" is only half as thick as yours.

>>16810341
Too specific. If you want theory, you have to go straight up into the foundations of Western civilization and that's natural law theory. Leo Strauss would be a good modern to read on that.

>>16816076
> I am a fascist
Can you share some books you've read that would help one properly understand fascism?

>>16817952
Nah, he'd turn the other cheek

>>16820803
cringe